not really.
kirally just works better for me.
ppsh its a numbers weapon. just that.
if i waste less ammo to deal more kills and grant me a better chance to survive more with it and dont have to get on a ammo crate every min, i rather have the kirally.
also map layouts in my opinion dont favor ppsh as much as the kirally does.
ence why i rather take a MG, or AVS over it.
Il take the bait, while the personal opinions aint exactly debatable.
PPsh doesnt lose in any category over kiraly, except 0.1? Faster ttk.
On range it performs pretty much identically without recoil.
but we dont judge a weapon or a vehicle or what ever, just by the stats.
but where will the weapon be used (map layouts)
how the weapon will be used
the way the player actually play the game
etc etc
ppsh might be superior on paper, but for me, it just wastes too much bullets per soldier on distances a kirally will do exacly the same or better in my hands.
moscow maps aint ppsh friendly. but thats just me.
even in berlin or stalingrad. i just dont use it.
its a waste of bullets , and overall just a numbers weapon.
for me its the same as shivex, i hate the ppsh sights and i feel It waste too much ammo per kill.
i prefer having a kiraly
Thats pretty much the only thing that can be compared without alternating.
As I do by far better with ppsh.
With this I disagree, only exception would be quarry and even theres plenty of combat where ppsh excels better than it counterpart.
And even then you can wield moist nugget & PPsh.
Kiraly is by far best weapon germuts have IMO and I use it extensively especiatly in moscow.
Yet I just dont see a single thing kiraly could do better than ppsh.
i m glad it does work for you. keep it up.
sadly it doesnt for me.
In order of appearance
Great, educated opinions are still…“opinions”…can’t throw it around with “undeniable fact” or use it as an excuse to treat others poorly. At no point did my opinion or statements use or refer to weapon paper characteristic as the reason they ARE superior. It something you asked and I never answered because it didnt make a difference to my standpoint whether their stats on paper were better. I am only concerned with practice.
So lets be 100% clear about that. “ON PAPER THEY LOOK SUPERIOR”. Seems to be the only thing you are interested in so FACT (wasnt in dispute). Fact in practice? NO. deniable opinion. Paper is a far cry from actually being superior. Even Shiivex has gone and said the same thing in his opinion…There are tooo many external variables that dont show on paper Quote me where I said they werent superior on “paper”.
My opinion was that Paper stats dont translate through the player using them and therefore not much to be concerned about in Pracitce. Really not debating over the same thing.
DIRECT QUESTION. Is it your standpoint, that because something looks superior on paper, that it “IS” superior, period??? I refer to this
There clearly is arguments to be had. this is still opinion
I even conveyed that they should be better in situations (that goes for tanks also) by virtue of what their paper suggest, But when that translates into game performance, it doesn’t count for much. Hence all the data collected from peoples campaign screens to show “reasonable doubt”.
This is what It all comes down to; Peoples opinion that Paper is what counts, peoples opinion that in practice is what counts.
why would you push this question when you yourself have stated its worthless…I didnt challenge that, I accept that.
If they doctored the winrate as you say, the higher winrate just means they couldn’t be assed quiting (heck it should be 100%, why didn’t they go for it…dunno.) Still doesn’t change the fact shown in the stats that when they do stay in game, it’s mgs they use the most.
(Edit, he answered you directly, me guessing as to why is redundant. We have very similar opinions.)
Answer this question;
Even if the other games they left were recorded, do you think their behaviour, their choices of weapons, their performance would be any different? I mean you would assume you would leave if you were having a bad game, not a good game. That means the sample represents them at roughly their best. And its only MGs that are really standing out. Iknow that even when im fighting a losing battle, my choices and performance are roughly the same.
**And now here’s the kicker, by analyzing their data it suggested MGs as the effective go to…Which is now confirmed by Shiivex, which incidentally doesnt follow the same rules of Paper = superior. **
Asking a question not in context of the quote. Rifle wasn’t even mentioned It was about rate of fire diminishing returns. Are you really trying to bait an answer out of an irrelevant question as a rebuttal???
In your opinion they do
I was being lazy…t50 and t34
Pointless what if scenario. Refer to my post where I talk about the panzer IV being an infantry support tank and that it excels. Youre thinking is very 2 dimensional. Screenshots indicated killing more tanks per game and in total as germany accross the board. So that superior vehicle in certain scenarios is not counting for much in the scheme of things. Doesn’t matter what they were killing it with, it was nullified and not standing out “in practice”
That’s a fair interpretation (as in you could make that assumption. but refering to how they possibly used it is baseless) . Personaly I bet they cleaned up at all ranges with it.
I neglect commenting on weapon paper stats because when you put it insomeones hands it will be different per individual and won’t reflect the stats. Something as simple as not liking the sights. One doesn’t fit all, what good are superior stats when you can’t put them into practice.
Why are gun facts not facts but win rates are undeniable?
I got jumped on by having this exact same opinion. Wastes too many bullets
*edit, TUS, alot of hidden replies…you posted your campaign stats yet mate? your talking to nobody until you do. someone can quote it in for you.
Isnt that obvious ? Take this one guy for example who prefers BA.
If he takes PPSh and cant do shit, its not hes fault but the gun is bad.
Well they are solid as rock and cannot be altered in any manner.
I believe this is rather undeniable fact.
What you personally like to play is entirely irrelevant to subject of soviet smg’s being better than theyr counterparts as thats just undeniable fact.
If you like BA and do what ever the fk you do thats fine it still doesnt change the fact that soviet smg’s are better.
Pointless ? Thats pretty much one part of entire game being “pointless what if scenario”
Could it perhaps be due to fact that the above mentioned t34 is quite capable to kill opposite tanks ? Leaving the infantry to do what ever the fk BA CQC fight they wish to do without having to deal with tanks ?
???
So with your logic we can add Kp31 to germuts without recoil, OHK capability at all ranges and very least same rof as PPSh has ?
I mean its not OP if its being used by absolute trashbag.
I can quite confidentally say if you lose with better equipment it sure aint the fault of the equipment.
Thats the paper. Now wheres the in practice.
Idk, kirali surpasses the PPSH in stats, but you deny it.
There were Tigers in Tunisia irl
not looking at the win rate. Looking at what they used the most of, and to the most effect when they stayed till the end. Then comparing it to themselves (comparing equal skilled players…themselves)on the opposite team and their averages across the board
forget win rate, theres much more data there. Looking for In practice data as reasonable doubt against on paper is superior.
The 1,2 faster reload time or what?
The 1.3 higher dmg which is still not good enough to get a higher ttk than PPSh?
Even that data isnt reliable unlike weapon stats and I dont know how thats makes lower rof better or not.
But it does reliably show what they use most/prefer. I could identify that shiivex and the other guy favour mgs based on their stats. Shiivex then stated as much after the fact and why
Think of it like this, you only need 3 bullets to get the job done (this is just and example)
now pull the trigger on the PPSH, can you reliably control it only dispersing those 3 rounds?
So when you killed the guy, you more likely used far more than that. because the rate of fire was more than what was needed
start increasing the range at which you are shooting and you start spitting bullets out everwhere.
I mean Moscow
